When an author can't reveal his identity or the Christian names of his children for fear of imprisonment from a secret court, someone has to speak up. The public will be shocked at this story and utterly outraged that they paid for the illegal removal of my child in 2006 and the cover-up that followed. The evidence suggests that my case is not a one off: an illegal trade in children to pay for state mistakes is in place.

Over the years, I have contacted Prime Ministers Blair and Brown, Party Leaders, local politicians, the police, courts, government agencies, legal and parliamentary regulators, charities and even the media. The authorities elected to cover it up, and it is clear that impunity reigns supreme in the UK. Baroness Kinnock's involvement gives an indication of the level to which this reached.

Glenys Kinnock was the only politician that helped, even raising my concerns with the British Embassy in Berlin. She did this in her capacity as my Member of the European Parliament (MEP) towards the end of 2008. After fifteen years as an MEP, she did not stand for the European Parliament elections on 4 June 2009. The next day brought a government cabinet reshuffle and minister resignations. My former MEP was made a life peer so she could take the vacant Minister for Europe post in Brown's government. To facilitate that, her husband, the former leader of the Labour Party Lord Kinnock, resigned as head of the British Council after four-and-a-half years. The Minister for Europe was a high profile post that merited a seat at cabinet meetings (the UK's political top-table). As Lady Meyer's child abduction case (also see the Fact Sheet) had been supported by the Minister for Europe, I therefore maximised this unexpected opportunity and wrote to the Minister, the Lord Chancellor (Justice Minister) and the Prime Minister amongst others. As Baroness Kinnock sat regularly at cabinet meetings, there was no excuse for the government to do nothing, so something had to give. Yet nothing happened. At the end of August I wrote to my (new) MEP for Wales, “unless Glenys Kinnock has done something I don't know about, I can't see how she could remain as a cabinet minister....”

It was clear to me by the end of 2009 that impunity reigned supreme and nobody would or could help and that the only path to justice was to bring the whole scandal to the attention of the public. I realised I needed a solid public platform. All attempts at publicising my story through the media had failed and the secret family courts made this task difficult. Consequently, I wrote my story which took a further two years. That book, The Key?, describes what happened, provides the sources of evidence and reveals the names of those involved (where possible). In short, it is the case for the prosecution. My public platform had to be a book not only to do the story justice, but also because it is not so straightforward for the authorities to destroy it like they did with evidence at The Royal Courts of Justice .

The missing evidence recorded a hearing presided over by Judge M who was under investigation by the Office for Judicial Complaints (OJC). It occured directly after I submitted a transcript of an earlier hearing, presided over by Judge F who was also under investigation, to the OJC which exposed the existence of a secret document. Why was a secret document lodged at a hearing I never attended or even knew about? To make matters worse, I had specifically writen to Judge F, long before initiating the transcription procedure, asking if there were any court documents that were not in my possession. Judge F did not disclose the existence of that document. And to make matters even worse, I had a copy of the destroyed data all the time, sent to me over a year earlier from the RCJ months before I submitted my complaints to the OJC.

On its own, Baroness Kinnock's story would be dismissed by the authorities as utter nonsense. However, the book gives the context and there are, of course, other incidents as well: The Key?'s story is far greater than the sum of its parts. A quick look at the Fact Sheet gives you an idea as to why the authorities went to extremes to cover this up. The Leveson Inquiry complements my allegations; the following tweet about a Leveson discussion on a political programme confirms this: "Ofcom architect Lord Puttnam says Leveson has uncovered a 'banana republic': corrupt press, corrupt police, corrupt politicians #newsnight." My case shows that we can add corrupt state legal apparatus and corrupt legal regulation to that list. This is how it is in Britain and has been for years. I know corruption exists but it has gone too far when the state trades in children for its own benefit and covers it up.

My family have suffered for years. My suffering has been so extreme that it must surely be deemed torture. My children have suffered and still are, and I consider the mother of my children a victim as well. I have fought to save my family but failed. Eight years on and I am still fighting for justice.

I have asked other institutions to intervene. I wrote to the German ambassador to the UK and the German government amongst others. European institutions have failed. It therefore falls upon the United Nations to uphold our hard fought principles of democracy, the rule of law and human rights. The UN must do what it knows it must: adhere to the admonition carved in stone on the world's most famous criminal court: “Defend the children of the poor & punish the wrongdoer.”

My case shows that the British state is guilty of impunity and it occurred at every level. The “Set of Principles for the Protection and Promotion of Human Rights Through Action to Combat Impunity,” submitted to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, defines impunity as: the impossibility, de jure [in law] or de facto [in practice], of bringing the perpetrators of violations to account — whether in criminal, civil, administrative or disciplinary proceedings — since they are not subject to any inquiry that might lead to their being accused, arrested, tried and, if found guilty, sentenced to appropriate penalties, and to making reparations to their victims.

The First Principle states: Impunity arises from a failure by States to meet their obligations to investigate violations; to take appropriate measures in respect of the perpetrators, particularly in the area of justice, by ensuring that those suspected of criminal responsibility are prosecuted, tried and duly punished; to provide victims with effective remedies and to ensure that they receive reparation for the injuries suffered; to ensure the inalienable right to know the truth about violations; and to take other necessary steps to prevent a recurrence of violations.

The British state has failed every criteria in the First Principle. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child Article thirty-five says that contracting states must “take all appropriate national, bilateral, and multilateral measures to prevent the abduction, the sale of, or traffic in children for any purpose or in any form.” As the United Kingdom are in violation of Article thirty-five, then the UN must step in and find a way to prosecute the perpetrators and stop this sick trade, stop impunity and protect the public and our children.

TheKeyAuthor's case shows that the British state is guilty of impunity and it occurred at every level. The British state has failed every criteria of The Set of Principles for the Protection and Promotion of Human Rights Through Action to Combat Impunity First Principle.

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child Article thirty-five says that contracting states must “take all appropriate national, bilateral, and multilateral measures to prevent the abduction, the sale of, or traffic in children for any purpose or in any form.” As the United Kingdom are in violation of Article thirty-five, then the UN must step in and find a way to prosecute the perpetrators and stop this sick trade, stop impunity and protect the public and our children.